Nationwide to Demutualise?

antrobus

purch wrote: »

....Of course if NW had stayed as it was, instead of trying to be what it isn't, this could have been all avoided.

Why, what do you think the Nationwide has been doing?

pqrdef

Generali wrote: »

if Nationwide fails to keep up with the coupon payments they will have to issue shares instead.

Somebody remind me what the point of shares in an insolvent institution would be?

MoneyMate

wotsthat wrote: »

To protect themselves from carpetbaggers their T&C's say that the members will donate any windfalls to charity in the event of demutualisation.

Don't know if this is still the case or enforceable.

But if you have been with them for some considerable time don't you have a windfall payment ?

TruckerT

I recently received my invitation to vote at the Nationwide AGM - I ignored it as usual.

If NW seriously need to give up their mutual status, then individual members will have to start thinking!

Part of the casino culture was the windfalls from building societies becoming banks. We have all learnt a lot since then...

TruckerT

purch

antrobus wrote: »

Why, what do you think the Nationwide has been doing?

Pretending to be a Bank, rather than a Building Society

Generali

pqrdef wrote: »

Somebody remind me what the point of shares in an insolvent institution would be?

Very good point but perhaps it's worth thinking about what 'insolvent' means for a lender.

Nationwide (possibly) has a future lending money and gaining an income stream as a result. That income stream has a value and being cash flow positive is one definition of solvency.

Another definition of insolvency is being unable to meet your cash requirements. Under that definition, Nationwide could be insolvent.

So who wants to buy in or otherwise?

John_Pierpoint

thor wrote: »

AS a NW saver, what is the difference? You get just as crappy rates as the banks, short term bonuses to punish loyal customers and the bosses 'rewarding' us members by paying themselves a King's ransom. Whatever happened to them being 'proud to be different'?
After sticking with them for decades I have concluded I would have been much better off if they had demutualised in the late 90s.

So which of the Building Societies, whose managements turned them into banks, still exist. Even the well run ones got bought up by banks and went phut in the global crisis.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

NW have been looking into issuing a form of hybrid bond share for some weeks to raise capital, rather than PIB's. No talk of demutalisation.

The term PIB has become toxic, following the attempts to rewrite company law at law at the Coop and the Bank of Irelandt en
Form an orderly queue for a change the name and do the same exercise at the barbers shop..

Anyone know what sort of financial engineering is going on at the Kent Reliance building society.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If banks generally had stayed as they were and left cowboys to their poker, this could all have been avoided

We used to call the living on the edge operatives "Merchant Bankers" - what was it that allowed the deposits of ordinary folks to be turned into casino chips ?

elantan

mysk_girl wrote: »

I signed that clause. I'm sure it is enforceable, they will have made sure of that!

Wasn't that clause for people that joined after a certain date?

Thrugelmir

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The term PIB has become toxic, following the attempts to rewrite company law at law at the Coop

No different to any other business that has a requirement to recapitalise. Converting a liability into equity is one of the easiest and quickest ways of doing so.

Would you prefer that taxpayers bailed the banks out?

antrobus

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

...Anyone know what sort of financial engineering is going on at the Kent Reliance building society. ...

It converted into an industrial and provident society and sold the business to a bank. The society retains a majority shareholding in the bank, JC Flowers owns the rest.